§ 4.9 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, before we listen, as we all hope to do, to the noble Lord opposite, it might be convenient if I read here a statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. It is about the security case.
"The Government have decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, which will report to the Prime Minister, to survey the field which has come into question as a result of the recent conviction of certain individuals on a charge of conspiracy at the Central Criminal Court.
"The terms of reference will be as follows:
'To examine the circumstances connected with the recent spy trial at the Central Criminal Court and in particular those in which two individuals came to be employed, and were retained in employment, in naval establishments, with a view to determining what breaches of security arrangements, if any, took place: and to report whether there was any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for their employment and conduct;142'To examine the circumstances in which three persons, convicted at the same time, secured admission to the United Kingdom;'To draw attention to any failure in existing security procedures which may come to their notice in the course of their Inquiry.'"I am glad to be able to inform the House that Sir Charles Romer, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, has accepted the Chairmanship. The other two members will be Sir Harold Emmerson, formerly Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Labour, and a retired naval officer, Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Thistleton-Smith."The appointment of this Committee fulfils the undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on March 23 to find out, by means of a broad based inquiry, 'What went wrong in this case',"
§ My Lards, that is the statement.
§ 4.10 p.m.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, we are obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, for that statement. We all have to be a little careful in this matter, because as appeals are pending from the decision of the Central Criminal Court it is in a sense sub judice; therefore we must not touch on the merits of the trial and its result. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount why there has apparently been left out of the terms of reference any provision for recommendations as to remedies or changes to be made. This appears to be merely a Committee of Inquiry, to examine and so on, but: I do not see anywhere authority to the Committee to make recommendations as to remedies or changes which are calculated to prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing.
The other point is this: are the Government really satisfied with the composition of this Committee? There was a former Inquiry, of which the Lord Chancellor was the Chairman and of which I had the honour to be a member, known as the Committee of Privy Counsellors. I am not saying that that should necessarily be done again, and certainly I am not looking out for more Committees on which to serve, but this does not appear to me to be a Committee which is sufficiently independent. I do not 143 wish to argue about the Chairman, Sir Charles Romer, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, but I am not sure about the other two. They may be estimable men, and indeed I know Sir Harold Emmerson, who worked under me at the Ministry of Home Security, and he was a first-class civil servant. But he is a retired civil servant, and I am not sure that that is right. The other is a retired naval officer, and this is an Inquiry into what are felt to be possible shortcomings on the part of the Royal Navy and the Admiralty. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, if the Government have not considered whether they should have a Committee which not only is independent—and I am making no allegations about either of these gentlemen—but also has the appearance of independence as well, which I think is profoundly important.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I ask—
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I should like to deal with one at a time; otherwise I shall get myself into a muddle and perhaps confuse the House. On the first part of the noble Lord's question, I would say that the terms of reference include an instruction to draw attention to any failure in existing security procedures. That is to say, it will be their duty to draw attention to any weakness which is brought to light in the existing system. The question of remedy would, I think, not be within their terms of reference that would be for a subsequent Inquiry or subsequent action. That deals with the first part of the noble Lord's question. It is intended to correspond closely to what my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, said in another place on March 23 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 637 (No. 80), col. 589]:
I am sure that the right course is to find out what went wrong by the special inquiry and then, with all those who understand it, see whether we need some different system, whether the system of the precise relations between the counter-espionage people and the Department is the right one, and so forth.It is really only the first stage which is contemplated here, but they have the power to draw attention to any failure in the existing system.As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, we did not feel 144 at all that these two very distinguished gentlemen who had risen to the top of their profession would show any degree of want of independence—quite the contrary. I should have thought a retired naval officer, who, although he is retired, is about my own age, about 55, I understand, is just the sort of person who may be able to help Sir Charles Romer, of whose independence I can assure the House not only because he is an ex-Lord Justice of Appeal but also because I had the privilege of appearing before him very often; I can assure the House he is most independent. I think also the noble Lord was overlooking—perhaps he was not overlooking, but he had not at that time considered—the first part of my reply. The object of this Inquiry is to see what went wrong in this case and then to see what failures in the existing arrangements turn up, and when this is done a further inquiry, which might, of course, be of the kind to which the noble Lord referred, might take place, if it was thought desirable. I think that deals with the two points the noble Lord raised.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, I have no criticism at all about the personnel of this Committee, but I should like to be a little clearer as to the scope of the inquiry. As I understand it, they are to find out what went wrong. That may be to find out whether there was a breach of duty or competence on the part of the people who were concerned with security at this establishment. That is a very limited inquiry. Will it be within their competence to inquire whether there is full co-ordination of all the agencies which may have been or ought to have been concerned in this matter, not only those engaged in espionage and counter-espionage but the other Departments of State? That was the point I ventured to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty when this matter came up before, because I believe that to be at the crux of the whole matter. I would therefore ask, first of all, whether that is within the scope of their inquiry, or is that to await some further inquiry? Supposing they find that, although people may or may not have done their duty, the whole security organisation would have been much more effective if there had been more co-ordination, will that be within the 145 competence of these gentlemen to inquire into and report on?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the inquiry is not at all limited to the Admiralty aspect of this matter. Other Departments are involved, and this would be so even on the more limited interpretation of the terms of reference put to me by my noble friend. But they do not really stop there. The point is that if, during the course of their inquiry, some failure in the security arrangements, not consisting simply of breach of duty—that is dealt with in the first paragraph of the terms of reference —but some other failure of the security arrangements, comes to light—
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONInadequacy of the arrangements?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMYes—it will be the duty of the Committee to draw attention to it, but not to prescribe a remedy.
LORD REAMy Lords, would the noble Viscount say that we should not infer from his words that the Prime Minister divided this into two parts: first of all, the Admiralty aspect; and secondly, the general aspect, about which he referred to the 1956 Committee of the Privy Council? Are we to take it that in general things are as judged to be by that Committee and this is a particular matter for inspection, or will the inspection go further afield?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I think that emerges from what I have said. This Inquiry is to look at the facts of the particular case. An Inquiry into all the facts of the particular case may reveal a failure of the security arrangements which are not limited to those facts. It is not an Inquiry designed to cover the whole of our security arrangements, but to examine all the facts in this case.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, there is one small point. When the Committee report the Government will perhaps find themselves in a little dilemma, because they will have to be careful that information is not published in the Report which would be useful to a possible enemy. This may be a controversial point, especially in another place, but no doubt it is a point which Ministers will keep in mind.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, we certainly will bear that in mind; and, of course, there is the other possibility, that it may result in disciplinary proceedings, which we must also keep in mind, because we must not prejudice any individual cases which may arise.